No matter who was winning, it seems pretty obnoxious to me. It totally ruins democracy when the God-King steps down from his throne to endorse certain candidates. Mark On 06/04/07, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: -- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

Yes, yes we did. Mark On 06/04/07, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

Erik Moeller wrote: I agree that an independent group should be involved. In fact I think the vote should be run on external servers, with a voter list (usernames and password hashes) sent to them before time. If it has to be run on our servers, it should be on an isolated server with limited shell access, and we should end our policy of giving the keys for the voting record to emotionally involved volunteers or staff. -- Tim Starling

Gah, I've written a lengthy email, but decided to check my Gmail history and investigate it even further. Since I was an election official, I can comment on this situation (although I wasn't that active, I took part in this "leak" speciffically). Here's the whole timeline: 09/11/06 - One of the Board members asked us to know the results, promishing s/he won't tell anyone 09/12/06 - The election officials were in favor (three people were active then, two were for this) 09/13/06 - The question of informing other Board members was raised. We all were in favor of informing the whole Board, except Angela + Foundation office employees - The Board member who originally requested the results got an email with the STATISTICS (how many people from what projects did vote, etc.). 09/15/06 - I have personally emailed the four Board members + Foundation office employees with the percentage results. - The Board member who originally requested the results wasn't pleased that we provided the results to all the other Board members (at least that's what I understood from the email s/he sent) and forwarded them to Angela 09/16/06 - Jimmy sent his email to foundation-l - The Board member who orig(blablabla) was concerned with Jimmy's email and wanted to declare the elections illegal, but in the end we continued them. That's all, in a nutshell. The problem was that we didn't have the _authority_ to NOT give the Board the results (at least that's what we thought). How should it be fixed this year? Having an independant group is an option, but I think that just clearly stating that something like this should not happen - or going even further, prohibiting direct contact between the Election Officials and the Board - wouldn't let a situation like that happen again. Just to make it clear - I am fully responsible for my actions, althought right now, looking back at them, I don't think that this "leak" was really dangerous in any way to the elections (since Jimmy's email didn't really "help" any other candidates, and nothing else was done). That is all, I'm open for any more questions regarding this situation. -- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz Siedlecki

Anthony wrote: I don't see this as useful speculation. I would take Dariusz's narrative as a basis for informing future decisions about how this kind of thing should be prevented. The time for finding fault or blaming is long past. Ec

I think it's fairly obvious considering who it was who publicly objected to Jimmy's e-mail. HOWEVER, there was no rule against what she did, and I trust that she had logical reasons for requesting to know the results because I think she is a trustworthy person. I also don't see any reason for laying blame. Okay, we know who it was, so what? We're not going to punish them because technically they did nothing wrong. It's in the past. Rather than trying to get all upset about what happened, why don't we instead focus our energy on trying to make sure it doesn't happen again? On 07/04/07, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: -- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.